DISTRICT COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 809, 23 August 1877, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

, Z:'\ '"' AMi;^N^Att^s^'2i;;, ; j r.i .■■:!•*. ■■'•■•'/,> '•_ ; . n-yj^rTT v.-'rn; j ■■A ■ [ ..::..; (Before His Honor F, »?, ,Brookfield. ) Anderson v Walker.— olaib_; ; ..6iß jl9s lid. Mr Hay appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Whitaker for defendant. .•'■' Duncan " : Aa^p^m^m tr §aiA defendkfV'MM^^B^QJftMw 'or building a'Wealeyan Parsonage. I built it according to plans and specifications produced. I was -o receive £2il 10|, and have reooived t £l96 7s 4d. I d.dMtra work at the requesj^ of one u of the com- ' mittee, which' defendant sanctioned. I. had a previous actipn ip January, but was non-suited; beoause - the flushing of .the ohimneys was not properly .done. h: ■$ .This .job has Since betojcdttpieted to the ! k*-tt£i..fae-ion of Mr Smith. Defendant S itAd .me Mr. Smith.was, authorised to pass "the work. Plaintiff here'deposed to tho quality of the material, used, and to that ■of the work; ; "- ' " ■■'""■*- •--■•■'--• ..^ BB Walker, sworn, produced^ the plans and specification*, shoWin^ thaCthd'work had not been done in accordance 'therewith; .in a variety of .particulars. Told plaintiff if he completed the building: according to specification, I would pay for what was done. Ido not remember giv-. ing a memo of what was required to, be completed. Mr Smith may have made a memo, i ii wanted! tfie /building pot up according to , plaps ( and specifications. The work has not been so completed. Jas Cook, carpenter, deposed to ex-, .amining 5 - the- building/ to see if works were according to plans and specifications. I consider it was finished according to specifications anddrawjn^s. The joists I oouldnoteee. I made a careiule^atniuation.. . ■„.■■', i-., To Mr Whitaker* : I am 1 hot an archi- .,. teot. I examined >h^ brings, fas to the plans. and; specifications. It is sometimes imp-issi-Ie to nail posts, to studs. I looked : at 'the foundation. Matai is not. so ,gopd as. puriri but will last as long if sound. The painting ia. not a good sample. Three coats on kahikatea are not so good as one oh ; kauri.' The inside of tne' verandah, was' not painted j there were no ( inside" arohi- ■ traves, and -the c_.itan»y» were not i properly .flushed, hutj ;the, ,work was , done in^ wornmanlike manner. I have been in the habit of building houses suoh as this. Fidward Pearson, {a builder deposed, I should -call the plans only a rough sketch of front elev.tion; Kahikatea will shrink with change- of |weather, and will not show np paint to same advantage as kauri. The plan shows the passage ► wider than the doors. - . . M , . -( , Mir Walker, recalled, stated he had . made payments to the amount Or £95, 18 61 on account of plaintiff. I examined the building. It was bu^t of the worst, timber ihat ooiild be got 'from Lower Waikato. The floors shrunk verjr much ; I was appointed by the committee to examine it, and I disapproved the work. It was not praperly painted; 'Withes* here pointed out\ a number of defect* in the work; David Richardson, arohiteot, deposed to the unfinished state of the windows, defective laying of the floor, Sw ; and generally that the workmanship was very insufficient. Mr Whitaker pointed out that- th» contract was only si.ned by the plaintiff and not by the defendants and that it was therein stated that tbe work should be done to the satisfaotion of the oommittee. Mr Hay contended that the contra >t was signed in. two parts, pne by. each party . He abandoned : ' tho" claim for extras. The Court nonsuited the plaintiff, with costs £6 Ss.